Response and encoding factors in “ignoring” irrelevant information

Flowers, John H.; Warner, Jack L.; Polansky, Michael L.

doi:10.3758/bf03197589

Cited by 54 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that selective attention can sometimes succeed implies that any crosstalk that does occur, between whatever psychological mechanisms act on color and/or color word information, is not fundamental to the cognitive system. In other words, interaction is not inevitable in the classifying of Stroop dimensions: The magnitude, the presence or absence, and even the form (regular or reverse) of the Stroop effect is easily manipulated (e.g., Flowers et al, 1979), especially by the degree of match in baseline discriminability. In this sense, it appears that the Stroop effect is an optional effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The framework of dimensional interaction was used to test the hypothesis that the Stroop effect is partially rooted in mismatches in baseline discriminability, with stimulus differences along the word dimension typically exceeding stimulus differences along the color dimension. Subjects made speeded classifications, with either keypresses or vocalizations, of either words or colors. Stroop congruity and Garner interference were measured under conditions in which discriminabilities were (l) matched (Experiments 1 and 4), (2) mismatched in favor of colors (Experiment 2), or (3) mismatched in favor of words (Experiment 3). When matched, colors and words appeared separable, with small interactive effects being reduced or eliminated through practice. When mismatched, asymmetric Stroop and Garner effects emerged, with the more discriminable dimension disrupting classification of the less discriminable dimension. Asymmetric effects were obtained in both response modes, and were not alleviated by practice. We conclude that (1) the Stroop effect is an optional effect, and (2) unequal discriminability causes a mandatory failure of selective attention.In his comprehensive review, MacLeod (1991) noted that, since the seminal paper by Stroop in 1935, over 700 articles have explored some aspect of the phenomenon that Stroop discovered. Stroop's study is especially intriguing because of the peculiar asymmetry that characterized his subjects' performance: When they read color words printed in various colors, irrelevant color had no effect on performance; however, when they named the colors of these words, the irrelevant words hindered performance significantly. This asymmetry is known universally as the Stroop effect. Much is now known about how this effect relates to a host of experimental variables. Some ofthese relations are discussed below. Despite an enormous amount of empirical study, however, the wider theoretical implications of Stroop's work have largely eluded researchers. In the present study, we view the Stroop effect in a different light-namely, that of research and theory on dimensional interaction. This approach permits us to fit the Stroop effect comfortably into the broader framework of what factors cause selective attention to succeed or fail. Our efforts yield new insights into the nature of the Stroop effect, on the one hand, and the nature of selective attention, on the other. Selective Attention and Dimensional InteractionThe questions of whether and how humans integrate the separate sources of information in their environment have enjoyed considerable research focus within cognitive psychology. One reason is that these issues have great bearing on the nature of many fundamental cognitive processes, including those in perception (see, e.g., Ashby

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, McClain found that keypress responses led to the usual Stroop asymmetry: Congruity effects obtained only with the nonword dimension. This suggests that stimulus-response compatibility is not sufficient by itself to explain the Stroop effect (see also Flowers, Warner, & Polansky, 1979).…”

Section: Other Factors Underlying the Stroop Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, the use of a single clinical measure of color perception (FMT), requiring substantial capacities in sustained attention, should be seen with caution in testing children with ADHD free of stimulant medication. Hence, future studies should include an additional measure of color perception as well as both the color perception independent counting stroop task (Flowers et al 1979;Albrecht et al accepted) and the Stroop color word interference task (Stroop 1935) to further clarify color vision deficits in ADHD and CTD on neuropsychological task performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Color perception deficits in co-existing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and chronic tic disorders

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary. Preliminary findings suggest that color perception, particularly of blue-yellow stimuli, is impaired in attention-deficit=hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as in chronic tic disorders (CTD). However, these findings have been not replicated and it is unclear what these deficits mean for the comorbidity of ADHD þ CTD.Four groups (ADHD, CTD, ADHD þ CTD, controls) of children with similar age, IQ and gender distribution were investigated with the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test (FMT) and the Stroop-Color-Word Task using a factorial design. Color perception deficits, as indexed by the FMT, were found for both main factors (ADHD and CTD), but there were no interaction effects. A preponderance of deficits on the blue-yellow compared to the red-green axis was detected for ADHD. In the Stroop task only the 'pure' ADHD group showed impairments in interference control and other parameters of Stroop performance. No significant correlations between any FMT parameter and color naming in the Stroop task were found. Basic color perception deficits in both ADHD and CTD could be found. Beyond that, it could be shown that these deficits are additive in the case of comorbidity (ADHD þ CTD). Performance deficits on the Stroop task were present only in the 'pure' ADHD group. Hence, the latter may be compensated in the comorbid group by good prefrontal capabilities of CTD. The influence of color perception deficits on Stroop task performance might be negligible.

show abstract

“…It is possible to specifically examine the role of SRC in Stroop interference by increasing the degree of correspondence between the irrelevant stimulus dimension and the response (Flowers, Warner, & Polansky, 1979;McClain, 1983;Zakay & Glicksohn, 1985). Flowers et al (1979) had subjects classify either the numerosity or numeric values of digits or words; responses were indicated by oral naming, card sorting, manual tapping, or oral "tapping" in five separate experiments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Flowers et al (1979) had subjects classify either the numerosity or numeric values of digits or words; responses were indicated by oral naming, card sorting, manual tapping, or oral "tapping" in five separate experiments. When numerosity was the cue for responding , incongruent levels of numeric value slowed naming and sorting but not tapping, whereas when numeric value was the cue, incongruent numerosity slowed tapping but not naming and sorting .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-response compatibility as a determinant of interference in a Stroop-like task

Fox

1992

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contribution of stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) to interference effects was tested in a Stroop-like task. Few previous studies have examined maximal compatibility for both dimensions of a stimulus. In the present study, the words UP, DOWN, LEFT, and RIGHT were presented on a computer screen . The word appeared at fixation and immediately began to move either up or down or left or right. Subjects responded either manually (by moving a joystick) or verbally according to (1) the verbal denotation of the word or (2) the direction the word was moving. Stimuli were congruent (e.g., UP moving up) or incongruent (e.g., UP moving down) and were presented in four conditions that varied in the degree of SRC (e.g., voice response to the meaning of the word = high SRC; voice response to the direction the word was moving = low SRC). Response times were slower in conditions with low SRC. The typical congruency effect was more pronounced in conditions with low SRC than in conditions with high SRC, showing that at least some of the interference observed in Stroop-type studies can be explained in terms of SRC.In the traditional Stroop task, names of colors are written in different colored inks (Stroop, 1935). When subjects are asked to read the word , they encounter little interference from an incongruent ink color, whereas when they are asked to name the ink color , they experience significant interference from an incongruent word (Dyer, 1973;Macleod, 1991).A number of studies have shown that Stroop interference can be significantly reduced by using non-naming responses such as buttonpressing (Flowers & Dutch, 1976;Keele, 1972;Virzi & Egeth, 1985). A possible explanation is that a printed word is "a program for a reader telling him how to pronounce it, but an object is not related to its name except arbitrarily" (Beller, 1975, p. 155). In other words, a nonverbal response is not compatible with a verbal stimulus, and therefore verbal incongruency does not produce interference. Likewise, Treisman and Fearnley (1969) have argued that interference with selective attention or response might arise only when the irrelevant stimulus attribute belongs to the same class as the response . The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that interference effects would be severely reduced if it were possible for subjects to generate a " color" response. This is the hypothesis that guides the present research: when there is maximal compatibility between the irrelevant stimulus dimension (cue) and the required re-

show abstract

Response and encoding factors in “ignoring” irrelevant information

Cited by 54 publications

References 27 publications

Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice

Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice

Color perception deficits in co-existing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and chronic tic disorders

Stimulus-response compatibility as a determinant of interference in a Stroop-like task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About